Catholic high school teacher fired after applying for same-sex marriage license

Comments

It is not inconsistent. The school, the church, would be paying for medical
benefits. It can't in this case. By making it illegal to refuse to pay for
birth control and benefits for same sex couples it has put the church in a tough
spot. It was okay to hire people regardless of sexual orientation. Now they are
required to accept the marriage by providing benefits, I predict it will get out
of the education and health care fields entirely. Good luck with that.

In the old days it was clergy doing most jobs in schools and hospitals. Single
people. They didn't need contraception or benefits for spouses or either
gender.

If he went to the school as a child and taught there for 12
years he would not have been surprised.

This is why the church speaks
out on such legislation. Because it effects them. Just wait until two million
student suddenly enter the public school system suddenly.

Contrariusiermid-state, TN

Dec. 15, 2013 11:20 a.m.

@Kirk R Graves --

"So, if Moral Relativists can't even agree
on what Moral Relativism is, how is there any validity in the
philosophy?"

Moral relativism isn't just a single philosophy
-- it's a characteristic of several different philosophies. Just as belief
in God isn't one religion -- many different religions believe in God.

Look at the definition I posted again: "Moral relativism may be any
of several philosophical positions". It's a major mistake to think that
all philosophies which incorporate moral relativism are the same, just as it is
a major mistake to think that all monotheistic religions are the same.

Kirk R GravesWest Jordan, UT

Dec. 14, 2013 10:30 a.m.

It would appear that even the definition of Moral Relativism is relative as I
did not make that definition up, but took it directly from the dissertation of a
well recognized, self-proclaimed, Moral Relativist.

So, if Moral
Relativists can't even agree on what Moral Relativism is, how is there any
validity in the philosophy?

Contrariusiermid-state, TN

Dec. 14, 2013 8:25 a.m.

@Kirk R Graves --

"Moral Relativism - The philosophical doctrine
that good and evil are defined by the individual."

"Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions
concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and
cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact
disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such
disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral
relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the
behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it."

As for 2. -- "but he doesn't share it with us" -- that is
an important component of continuous revelation, is it not? Mormons believe that
God continuously reveals bits and pieces of his doctrine as humans become ready
to receive them. Therefore, He has never revealed all of it, by definition.

Moral Relativism - The philosophical doctrine that good
and evil are defined by the individual.

First, there are only 2
scenarios where God could be a moral relativist.

1. He defines what
is good and evil based on a personal metric of harm and the higher understanding
he has. In this scenario, we would be stupid to believe we know better than He,
so we are back to moral absolutism.

2. He knows what is best for
us, but doesn't share it with us because he enjoys watching us suffer. We
must reject this idea of God as it is opposite of the definition of God, but
fills the definition of Satan or Devil instead. Thus, if there is a God, we are
back to the first option and we must accept Moral Absolutism.

Second, the question is not whether or not Christians support SS marriage, the
question is whether or not Christianity supports SS marriage. While it is
possible to wrest the scriptures to convince one's self that homosexuality
is morally acceptable, it is not in conformance with scriptural teachings.

Contrariusmid-state, TN

Dec. 13, 2013 11:10 a.m.

@Kirk --

"If there is a God, then sin is an absolute, not an
opinion. "

Who says? Maybe God believes in moral relativity.
Perhaps it is only your personal view of God that insists on absolutism.

"So, the only real question here is "Does God Exist?".
"

Nope. The other question is "If God does exist, how can I
presume to know its mind?"

Religions disagree widely on many very
important principles -- yet they all believe themselves to be correct
interpretations of God's will (or gods' wills). They can't all be
correct.

And, btw -- many Christians already support gay marriage.

Kirk R GravesWest Jordan, UT

Dec. 13, 2013 10:53 a.m.

@Ranch"MYOB. The only "sin" between loving LGBT couples is the
one in your mind."

If there is a God, then sin is an absolute,
not an opinion.

What constitutes sin in God's mind is an
opinion for each person, but they must base that opinion on the information they
have. The Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. The Quran says the same
thing. Between those 2 books you have covered better than 50% of the
world's population. So, the only real question here is "Does God
Exist?". Since I have proof that he does (that proof may only be of value
to me, but it is still proof), and you have no proof that he doesn't exist
(since it is impossible to prove the negative); therefor, making the claim that
homosexuality is a sin is not just in the mind, but based on logical, deductive
reasoning.

Contrariusmid-state, TN

Dec. 13, 2013 8:45 a.m.

@donn --

"The Holiness Code contained different types of
commands. "

Adultery and fornication ARE moral codes.

I'll repeat my question:

Would the adulteress or fornicator be
fired?

@Oatmeal --

"would you march into the
management office and announce that you were no longer going to fulfill the
obligations of your contract? "

Would you rather have him lie?

I'll ask you the same question: would the adulteress or fornicator
be fired?

"And the First Amendment dies..."

What
about the First Amendment rights of the teacher?

@Redwings --

"This looks like another set up "test case" the LGBT
community uses."

Baloney.

College soccer coach --
Nashville -- fired in 2010 after she told her team that her female partner was
pregnant.

Legislative editor of the Georgia General Assembly -- fired
in 2005 when she told her boss that she was transsexual and was going to begin
dressing/presenting as a woman.

Professor -- Wisconsin -- offered a
job as a university dean in 2010. When that university found out she was a
lesbian, the offer was rescinded.

Schoolteacher -- Minnesota -- fired
in 2013 after acknowledging that she's a lesbian. At the same school, the
school president resigned just a few months earlier after he acknowledged having
an 18-year relationship with another man.

OatmealWoods Cross, UT

Dec. 12, 2013 4:22 p.m.

@Contrariuserer:

If you have signed a contract with a private entity
that based your continued employment on set standards, would you march into the
management office and announce that you were no longer going to fulfill the
obligations of your contract? If you did so, would you then be surprised if you
were fired?

This story is not going end well for anyone. Religious
entities will be careful about ever employing gays, including talented teachers
and professionals, out of fear of a lawsuit. Laws may be passed against the
rights of private religious entities, including churches, from setting
religious-based standards for employees. And the First Amendment dies...

donnlayton, UT

Dec. 12, 2013 3:41 p.m.

RE: Contrariuserer,Would that adulteress or that fornicator be fired by the
school?

The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some
were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have
been done away with in the N.T.. (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though,
were moral codes, and are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice,
homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before
God.

Elders should be men who are of unquestionable integrity and are
irreproachable, the husband of “one wife”, whose children are [well
trained and are] believers, not open to the accusation of being loose in morals
and conduct or unruly and disorderly. (Titus 1:6 AMP)

Contrariuserermid-state, TN

Dec. 12, 2013 11:46 a.m.

@t702 --

"had this teacher leave his private business at home,
this wouldn't had happened. The school had no business of knowing what he
does in private, he should have left it at that"

You don't
leave your private business at home -- why should he?

Every time you
put a photo of your spouse on your desk, you are declaring your orientation.

Every time you tell another teacher that you are going to the movies
with your spouse, you are declaring your orientation.

Every time you
invite a friend to a baby shower for your pregnant girlfriend, you are not only
declaring your orientation but also declaring yourself to be living in sin.

When a divorced woman announces to her fellow teachers that she is
getting remarried, she is not only announcing her orientation but also declaring
herself to be an adulterer in the eyes of the Catholic church.

Should
all of these declarations of free speech be banned?

Would that
adulteress or that fornicator be fired by the school?

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

Dec. 12, 2013 11:43 a.m.

Same-sex attraction and homosexuality are two different things. It is the same
as being tempted to sin but not acting on it. The "sin" comes not from
being tempted but from giving in to the temptation and acting in rebellion
against God. Between "temptation" and "sin" is
"choice".

Why would a gay man get a job with the Catholic
Church given its teachings? This looks like another set up "test case"
the LGBT community uses. I expect to see this pushed into court and a liberal
judge to rule for the teacher.

Yet another example of one group being
able to trample the rights of another. Welcome to "tolerance" in the
21st century....

t702Las Vegas, NV

Dec. 12, 2013 11:26 a.m.

@ Contrariuserer

" How many teachers there are cohabitating or
otherwise having sex outside of marriage? How many teachers there have ever had
an abortion or even used birth control?They are practicing hypocrisy, not
righteousness."

I would like to know where did you find the names
of these people you mentioned? That is precisely the point, had this teacher
leave his private business at home, this wouldn't had happened. The school
had no business of knowing what he does in private, he should have left it at
that

spring streetSALT LAKE CITY, UT

Dec. 12, 2013 10:55 a.m.

So, a nurse who happens to be Catholic has the right to tell his/her boss that
he/she will not assist with certain procedures - such as abortions - because
they violate his/her right of conscience. And the boss, regardless of his or
her views, has to let the nurse opt out and cannot require that nurse to
participate (unless that nurse is the only one available and it is an emergency
situation in which the female patient will/may loose her life) even though
assisting in hospital procedures is a major part of the nurse's job
description.

And most everyone agrees that the employee should be
allowed to live his/her religious principles.

However, if a Christian
employee believes in same-sex marriage and wants to marry his/her same gender
significant other - even though this has absolutely no bearing on the
employee's job - the employer who objects to same-sex marriage has a right
to fire that employee because it violates the employer's right of
conscience.

Does anyone else find it suspect that "right of
conscience" always seems to belong to whichever party has the greatest
political backing?

Contrariuserermid-state, TN

Dec. 12, 2013 9:59 a.m.

@Jamescmeyer --

"The Catholic Church is an entity with certain
rules and beliefs, and if I work for such an entity, I can expect no less than
for them to maintain their rules and beliefs."

Then you should
expect them to fire EVERYONE who "lives in sin". How many teachers there
are cohabitating or otherwise having sex outside of marriage? How many teachers
there have ever had an abortion or even used birth control?

They are
practicing hypocrisy, not righteousness.

TRUTHSalt Lake City, UT

Dec. 12, 2013 9:35 a.m.

Why would one who is gay want to teach at a school where the curriculum is anti
gay? I don't blame the school for holding up its values, and blame the
teacher for his charade as a anti gay teacher!

JamescmeyerMidwest City, USA, OK

Dec. 12, 2013 7:08 a.m.

The Catholic Church is an entity with certain rules and beliefs, and if I work
for such an entity, I can expect no less than for them to maintain their rules
and beliefs.

Merely knowing that a person is homosexual is not
grounds to terminate them, simply being such is not a sin for that church; but
when looking at marriage in a misunderstood and selfish enough of a view to
promote its change (and, at least tacitly, the ills that come with it), then all
bets are off.

I doubt many of the people crying "unfair!"
would be doing the same if the teacher worked for a school spondered by a social
liberal "research" institute, and turned out to support the protection
of marriage.

RanchHere, UT

Dec. 12, 2013 6:51 a.m.

I don't know why he told them he was going to get married. He should have
just just gotten married and never informed the school of the event.

@Cats;

MYOB. The only "sin" between loving LGBT couples is
the one in your mind.

A ScientistProvo, UT

Dec. 11, 2013 10:05 p.m.

When he was merely known to be gay, there was no official, documented, legally
recognized evidence of that "sinful" status. His sinful behavior is only
hearsay. But as soon as he formalizes it by a marriage license, the Catholic
Church has "actionable" evidence.

The LDS Church is no
different. In the LDS Church, that a person is gay merely means they experience
"same sex attraction". That status is simply hearsay, and such a person
cannot be excommunicated or disfellowshipped on such grounds. But as soon as
there is evidence that they have "acted on" that attraction, then they
have officially "sinned" and can be disciplined.

This is
ecclesiastical legalistic hairsplitting, and no matter how Churches try to spin
it, it will backfire on them. There is no rational nor moral basis for religious
discrimination against equality and love.

Californian#1@94131San Francisco, CA

Dec. 11, 2013 9:31 p.m.

** "Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and they can work something out -
especially if they have let him work there for that long knowing he was
Gay." **

Knowing he was gay is one thing. Was the school
actually aware whether he was cohabiting with his partner, or did they practice
DADT? If the latter, perhaps they gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was
not living in sin, avoiding a confrontation over his sexual orientation.

But coming out and telling them he was applying to "marry"
someone of the same sex... that is a totally different matter. That is not an
issue of sexual orientation, but a case of him getting in their faces, making a
mockery of the doctrines of his religious employers, knowing what their reacion
would be, and maybe setting up a situation for a lawsuit.

DN Subscriber 2SLC, UT

Dec. 11, 2013 8:22 p.m.

It is astounding to watch the liberals all demand "tolerance and
respect" for "diverse lifestyles" and get all lawsuit happy at any
perceived injustice.

However, the show absolutely NO "tolerance
and respect" for the deeply held religious values of others.

As
Orwell pointed out, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more
equal."

CatsSomewhere in Time, UT

Dec. 11, 2013 7:34 p.m.

Regardless of if he's living in sin or "married", he is still
living in sin. This guy must live on another planet.

Henry DrummondSan Jose, CA

Dec. 11, 2013 7:02 p.m.

Legally the Catholic Church can certainly do this. It seems inconsistent to let
him "live in sin" but fire him when he marries, but the Church can do
that too. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and they can work something out -
especially if they have let him work there for that long knowing he was Gay.

Unless New Jersey law specifies that a
different document be used for same-sex couples than for opposite-sex couples, I
question this usage. He did not apply for a gay marriage license or a same-sex
marriage license. He applied for a marriage license. He just happens to be
planning to marry another man.

The inconsistency in the school's
policy is troubling as well. The criticism that the school was fine with an
"out" gay man as teacher but only became troubled when he announced
marriage plans is spot on and illustrates a bizarre double standard. In most
religions, marriage is the ticket that makes intimate relations legit. This
concept is echoed in most civil law. It's just odd (and paradoxical) that
the school would rather have a teacher live in sin than outside of sin.